CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06288
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

Matter of Puccio v. Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, was rendered paraplegic after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initially accepted but later controverted, asserting claimant was a partner and not an employee, thus excluded from coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board disallowed the claim, finding claimant was a profit-sharing partner/owner. Claimant appealed, arguing SIF failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 21-a (3) and that the Board erred in its finding of no employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the statutory compliance issue was unpreserved and substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant was a partner, not an employee.

Employer-Employee RelationshipPartnership StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCoverage DenialProfit-Sharing AgreementTax Returns as EvidenceAdministrative ReviewReconsideration DenialJudicial Review of Board DecisionsSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delcourt v. Silverman

Karen Ann Delcourt appealed summary judgments granted in favor of Dr. Edward Silverman, Ph.D., a court-appointed psychologist, and Norma Levine Trusch, a court-appointed guardian ad litem. Delcourt sued them alleging negligence, fraud, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of severe mental distress, stemming from a child custody dispute. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Silverman and Trusch were entitled to absolute derived judicial immunity because they acted as functionaries or arms of the court within the scope of their court appointments. The court also rejected Delcourt's procedural arguments and claims that absolute immunity does not protect against constitutional violations or conspiracy.

Judicial ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityDerived ImmunityGuardian Ad LitemCourt-Appointed PsychologistChild Custody DisputeSummary Judgment AppealFamily LawQuasi-Judicial FunctionParental Rights
References
52
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01871 [236 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Mondrangon v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.

Plaintiff Adan Mondrangon initiated an action against The Trustees of Columbia University after allegedly tripping over plumber's net and pipes in the basement of a university building. Columbia University subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp., their plumbing contractor, seeking indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, attributing responsibility for the hazardous condition to Absolute. Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, presenting evidence that their recent work did not involve the materials cited. However, the court found triable issues of fact arising from conflicting deposition testimonies, particularly concerning whether Absolute had worked on the basement project and could have been the source of the materials. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying Absolute's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, concluding that credibility issues were for a jury to determine.

Premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentindemnificationbreach of contractthird-party claimconflicting testimonytriable issues of factAppellate DivisionNew York courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sassower v. Mangano

Plaintiff Doris L. Sassower, appearing pro se, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants, including Judge Guy Mangano and the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, alleging conspiracy to suspend her law license without due process. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, res judicata, absolute immunity, and Eleventh Amendment bars. Sassower cross-moved for preliminary injunction and summary judgment. The Court treated defendants' motion as one for summary judgment and granted it, denying all of Sassower's cross-motions. The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, ruled that Sassower's claims were barred by res judicata, absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, and the Eleventh Amendment.

Attorney DisciplineDue ProcessRooker-Feldman DoctrineRes JudicataAbsolute ImmunityEleventh AmendmentFederal JurisdictionState Bar ProceedingsProfessional MisconductJudicial Immunity
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiff Brewster Marshall, a high school student with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, sued the Commissioner of Education of New York and athletic associations for denying him extended athletic eligibility to play basketball. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot due to his imminent graduation and the end of the basketball season, and that she had absolute judicial and legislative immunity. The Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and the ADA claim for monetary damages, finding them moot or conceded by the Plaintiff. However, the Court denied the Commissioner's request for dismissal based on absolute judicial and legislative immunity and also denied the dismissal of the Section 504 monetary claim, stating that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference.

Disability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation Act Section 504Athletic eligibilityMootness doctrineAbsolute immunity (judicial)Absolute immunity (legislative)Deliberate indifferenceSovereign immunityDeclaratory relief
References
127
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2006

Texas Ass'n of School Boards Risk Management Fund v. Benavides Independent School District

The Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning claims brought by the Benavides Independent School District. The School District had sued for breach of contract, torts (DTPA, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, fiduciary duties, negligence, gross negligence), and a declaratory action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for contractual claims, citing a waiver of immunity under Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as supported by Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco. However, the court reversed the trial court's order regarding the tort claims, ruling that governmental immunity from suit had not been waived for these claims, thereby dismissing them for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that governmental immunity exists between political subdivisions unless expressly waived.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionContract ClaimsTort ClaimsInterlocal Cooperation ActLocal Government CodeWaiver of ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionsSchool District
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District v. Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute between Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District (Ben Bolt) and the Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund). Ben Bolt sued the Fund after a claim for extensive water and mold damage was denied, leading the Fund to assert governmental immunity. The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the Fund is a distinct governmental unit, thereby entitled to governmental immunity. However, the Court concluded that Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code provides a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver of the Fund’s immunity from suit for breach of contract claims in this context. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Governmental ImmunityInsurance CoverageSelf-Insurance FundPolitical SubdivisionsInterlocal Cooperation ActBreach of ContractStatutory WaiverTrial Court JurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Mexia v. Tooke

The City of Mexia contracted with J.E. Tooke and Sons for curbside collection, but later terminated the agreement citing budgetary constraints. Tooke sued the City for breach of contract, and the trial court denied the City's plea to jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Tooke. On appeal, the central question was whether section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code waives sovereign immunity for home-rule municipalities. The appellate court examined the statutory language and Supreme Court precedents on immunity waiver, concluding that the 'plead and be impleaded' language does not constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that the City waived immunity through partial performance or by acting in a proprietary capacity, as solid waste removal is a governmental function. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityHome-Rule MunicipalitiesWaiver of ImmunityBreach of ContractTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsProprietary FunctionsPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,304 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational